This case sheds further light on the do’s and don’ts of online electronic contracting and the enforceability of app-based terms and conditions. The decision reinforces the point that for purposes of establishing a binding agreement with a user – particularly in the context of a mobile app – simplicity and clarity of the user interface is desired. And, in particular, this case reinforces the point that has been illustrated in many cases before that the design of user registration pages should be done with the input of legal analysis as to likely enforceability.

In this dispute, the plaintiff alleged that the digital currency exchange Coinbase negligently failed to prevent a scam that allowed a third party hacker to steal more than $200,000 in Litecoins from his account. Specifically, the plaintiff stated that he called what he believed was Coinbase’s customer support phone number to inquire about a pending transaction, but that the supposed Coinbase representative he spoke to was, in fact, a hacker, and that plaintiff disclosed enough information to allow the hacker to siphon digital currency from his account. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit, claiming that stronger security measures by Coinbase would have prevented the theft. Interestingly, the complaint asserted that Coinbase allegedly failed to comply with certain sections of the New York BitLicense regulation involving cybersecurity and fraud prevention, among others.

In response, Coinbase moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in its user agreement. The district court granted the motion and held that plaintiff had inquiry notice of the terms, including its mandatory arbitration provision, and that he manifested his assent to that agreement.

As seen in the screenshot below, when the plaintiff created his Coinbase account he was required to input basic registration information and also click a box that acknowledged agreement with the user agreement: “I certify that I am 18 years of age or older, and I agree to the User Agreement and Privacy Policy” (where both applicable agreements were hyperlinked).

If the box was not checked, a user was prevented from completing registration and prompted to agree to the terms [see below screenshot].

Generally speaking, when assessing whether a user agreed to a web service’s terms (and ultimately agreed to arbitrate claims), the Second Circuit has stated that it looks to the design and content of the relevant interface to determine “if the contract terms were presented to the offeree in [a] way that would put her on inquiry notice of such terms.” In validating Coinbase’s “minimalist” interface, the court held its process for gaining user assent to its terms was enforceable:

“The account creation screen contains only five fields and two checkboxes. As in Meyer, the ‘entire screen is visible at once,’ with a minimalist layout and no distractions. The request to agree to the user agreement and privacy policy appears to be in a slightly smaller font than other text on the screen, but it is immediately above the ‘Create Account’ button and ‘provided simultaneously to enrollment.'” [citations omitted].

Like all online businesses, digital currency platforms and other similar entities count on certain provisions in their user agreements in managing liability and risk, making it vital that such agreements are enforceable. As such, the Sultan case and other recent Second Circuit decisions on the issue of electronic contracting are a must-read. Design, consumer interface, and placement decisions are more than just an aesthetic issue, but are important to the enforceability of user terms and conditions, particularly in the context of a mobile app, where simplicity and clarity are desired. Lawyers should be part of these creative and business decisions to ensure that design issues do not affect the enforceability of user terms.

Jeffrey Neuburger is co-head of Proskauer’s Technology, Media & Telecommunications Group, head of the Firm’s Blockchain Group and a member of the Firm’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Group.

Jeff’s practice focuses on technology, media and intellectual property-related transactions, counseling and dispute resolution. That expertise, combined with his professional experience at General Electric and academic experience in computer science, makes him a leader in the field.

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.